Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fifth Industrial Revolution

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Fourth Industrial Revolution. Ordinarily, I'd relist this discussion as I don't see a strong consensus for any one closing outcome. But I'm going to be bold and close this as Redirect to the most often mentioned target article. If you are dissatisfied with this outcome, come to my talk page or Deletion review if you are genuinely upset. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth Industrial Revolution

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An RfC held at this article's talk page raised concerns about the claims that the Fourth Industrial Revolution are "failing", but then it was discovered that the entire article is resting on flimsy sourcing, and its topic is probably just a meaningless buzzword that should either be deleted outright or redirected to coiner Klaus Schwab. The discussion has been copied verbatim to the talk page of this AfD. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 12:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Technology. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 12:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious redirect to Fourth industrial revolution or delete entirely. Everywhere, manufacturing, warehousing, logistics, the industry is abuzz with the fourth. The fifth, if any, is crystalballery at its finest. --Ouro (blah blah) 13:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Hypothetical xyz used by bloggers" is non-notable. Til the term is used by academics in peer-reviewed journals, it's not ready for prime time. Oaktree b (talk) 13:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason I thought the term was coined by Klaus Schwab, but he might only be responsible for 4.0. If someone can provide a citation to demonstrate that he promotes 5.0 too, then we should redirect to Klaus Schwab, but if not then I think it’s just being used by non-notable hype merchants, and so we should delete. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- For Klaus Schwab I found that he is responsible for the term concerning the 4th as here in the introduction and here. Still, to my surprise, I found that the concept of the 5th is already being used, too, however... even the article has a link indicating that it was described by the European Commission. In addition, follow me here:
  - In this we find Industry 5.0 describes direct coopeation between humans and robots or intelligent machines. It would be an extension of Industry 4.0. We already have examples of this and this is part of the 4th, see for instance cobot.
  - In this we find The future of digitalisation will in less than 20 years, according to the scenario that is already today being described as Industry 5.0, bring about transhumanist and cyberphysical systems. This is taking things way beyond what we currently have described in the article on the 5th.
  - In this one we have It is rather greatly possible that Industry 5.0 will emerge earlier than we expect; and when it does, we could assume that this time will see the full implementation of everything that the Industry 4.0 only dreamed about!. Again, looking into the future, so some crystalballery.
  - In this one we have an entire chapter devoted to Industry 5.0 (the 5th), starting p. 26. A lot of nice definitions and concepts, however, turning to p. 36 we find mostly buzzwords, and further down the road concepts that are kind of already around as agile leadership or resource fluidity. Reading farther is not really worth it, and imho the authors allowed the document to sort of break down after that, see for yourselves.
- To conclude this analysis I would say that the article rather needs a pruning and some good editing than deletion. If the concept is already being used by the EC/ EU then the article is bound to get recreated sooner or later. I think I stand by my earlier suggestion to redirect to a section entitled something like Possible future developments at the end of the article on the 4th. I don't know whether the term is notable in and of itself, but it's certainly there. --Ouro (blah blah) 00:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and also consider redirect to ChatGPT assuming the first edit summary was true. My impression is Fourth IR may also be beyond fixing, and should be trimmed and merged into Klaus Schwab, if it makes sense. Disclaimer: I have not carefully reviewed the general topic or all the sources, but I've seen nothing to change my first impression at the RfC. -- Yae4 (talk) 05:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If ChatGPT was involved, we wouldn’t redirect the article to ChatGPT but it might be a very good reason to delete, per emerging consensus at WP:LLM. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 06:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect - possibly moving anything salvageable to Fourth Industrial Revolution, but there's not much that can be saved here. I made some effort to clean this up, but the sources are mostly heavily promotional and low-quality. The only really useful one is this, which is more of an article on how terms spread rather than something that treats it seriously in its own right, and which specifically says that the term lacks a well-defined definition: Yet, in recent years, the expression Industry 5.0 (I5.0) has emerged in blogs [2], social networks [3], institutional research and innovation programs [4], and academic works [5–9]. At first glance, this term may lead us to think that it is associated with a new industrial revolution. This raises some questions: “Will we be facing two revolutions simultaneously?” and “If it is a new revolution, what is the associated disruptive technology?”. The search for an answer in the literature revealed that the term “Industry 5.0” is associated with different concepts. This lack of agreement was the motivation for this work, that is, to understand the arising of the concept of I5.0. That's enough for a brief mention on another article, but not really enough to support an independent article. --Aquillion (talk) 11:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! --Ouro (blah blah) 11:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Disambiguate - Gentlemen, I have noted the various points of view. Please allow me a few hours. I shall join the discussion later in the day and provide my thoughts. Regards, Jean Julius Vernal 13:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with Aquillion above. Even the Fourth Industrial Revolution article is poorly sourced, and needs LOTS of work, but that is another issue.---Avatar317 ^(talk) 01:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete, per what I said on the talk page. It is basically impossible to extract any meaning from these sources, because there is no actual thing to talk about. The idea of a "fourth industrial revolution" is already completely conjectural and isn't (and can't) be supported by historical scholarship because it either hasn't happened yet or is currently happening. With that in mind, what could we possibly say about a fifth? "Some day people will invent some really wild future technology, and it'll be like, WOW, I mean, we'll be all ZWWWWWWEEEEEEOOOOOOUUUUWWW and the stuff will be like BOOM POW BAJOOOOOOOOFFFFFF and there will be lasers and AI and stuff probably"? Are we just going to call it an "industrial revolution" every time technology progresses by fifteen years? Why don't we just create Seventh Industrial Revolution with the text "idfk when but some crazy shizz is gonna happen for sure"? jp×g 08:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything useful to Fourth industrial revolution, by way of a tail piece. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete, no such thing, and sources tell almost nothing. Artem.G (talk) 08:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.